9-11 Conspiracy Theorists

Common sence tells me that a building that falls due to structural damage doesnt fall into its own foot print. that on top of obvios attempts to airbrush it over like it didnt happen, on top of what Kendra pointed to, the handy destruction of papers pertaining to investigations that would have hit people in the bush administration.

I also find events since 9/11 show that the admininstration has done nothing but GAIN from these attacks, things like the patriot act, the invasion of Iraq the pipelines in Afganastan and all this work being carried out by companys with links to bush and his friends. the war needs guns and equipment... who makes that? who profits? do YOU???

the mere fact that the 3 buildings came down so perfectly ready for shipping and melting down in asia like that is proof enough for me..

"go out and shop" new yorkers are told, in air that has aspestos, and other toxins from smoke detectors computers and other office machines.. rescuers are told not to wear gas masks because it looks bad.. the EPA doctors reports of how bad the air quality is, 4 rescue dogs reportedly died shortly after, more people getting sick every day.

look around the incident and not straight at it, if you still dont question it then go ahead and enjoy living under an oppressive autoritarian govenrment running endess wars for the rest of your life, because thats what your getting. but then, most folks will justify that too, not a CHANCE the land of the free home of the brave could be hijacked and run into the ground by terrorists with smiles.

If people like me, kendra and others are WRONG then you have nothing to worry about right? if we are right and things continue as it is.. then you are in a lot of trouble.

think of it a bit like Pascals Wager.

Their sudies of WTC 7 indicate that the collapse began in the lower stories (either failure of major load transfer members or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure. Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building why the building collapse initiated at an interior location.

What caused the loss of strength to interior columns and trusses that caused the total collapse of the building (in a typical controlled demolition fashion)?

Debris from the twin towers? That is nonsensical. Think about it. A modern steel girder and concrete building (I'm not really sure what you call it in English) would not collapse in its entirety due to some peppering by debris, even if it allegedly caused destruction to a third of its southern facade for as high as ten stories (if indeed such was the case), and it certainly wouldn't happen several hours after the event. You don't need to be a construction engineer to understand that the sort of building we are talking about rests upon the entirety of its steel skeleton. Some local damage in one part of the building cannot cause total collapse.

Yet, if debris was the culprit what was Silberstein on about "taking the decision to pull it". Only his weekly weed smoking binge made him mutter things about pulling down buildings?

And I gather the apartment fires in WTC 7 no longer are the prime suspects in this affair? Yeah, it did sound stupid all along didn't it.

Face it, the report is hogwash no matter the fancy stamps upon it.

*YAWN*

tell me have you ever seen what happens when a building falls? unless it is blown over, it will fall in on itself, its called gravity. take your house for example, if the interior bearing walls suddenly crumble, the roof will fall in, not out. Your common sense needs a new accountant. The rest of your post is irrelevent.

that IMO is FACT.

your whole feelings in this thread can be summed up by this. you haven't stated anything but opinions

like whitewashed reports from govenrment agencys are better.. you think those reports be even published if they casted doubt? BS

I haven't posted anything government related in this thread, just shows how well you have been reading.

If you wan't additional details to to show I'm not pulling this out of my ass you can read this publication by the American Society of Civil Engineers (Look at page 6, 7 & 14 relating to WTC7).

From the American Society of Civil Engineers publication:

Many of the buildings suffered severe fire damage but remained standing. However, two steel-framed structures experienced fire-induced collapse. WTC 7 collapsed completely after burning unchecked for approximately 7 hours, and a partial collapse occurred in an interior section of WTC 5.

Aha, so the fires in WTC 7 are still held to be the cause of collapse? Ever watched a fire once? Okay, get this, houses burn, but they don't collapse. Not even when it's almost totally burnt out and the fire department has failed for a quick control of the fire does a city building made of concrete and steel collapse, it just doesn't happen. The fire in WTC 7 by the way was like an apartment fire covering two floors. Yeah, naturally it caused an entire 47 story skyscraper to just cave in on itself. Sure...

The collapse of these structures is particularly significant in that, prior to these events, no protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse. Thus, these events may highlight new building vulnerabilities, not previously believed to exist.

Well, it couldn't be phrased in much clearer words, could it...

(Bold, my emphasis.)

you can't face the facts, that building wasn't a controlled demolition. The video evens proves it as I have stated earlier. You want to continue to gloss over the counters go ahead.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

hmm.. this one didnt fall o.O

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

hmm.. this one didnt fall o.O

my bad, the top 10 storys collapsed but left the rest standing.

I also find events since 9/11 show that the admininstration has done nothing but GAIN from these attacks, things like the patriot act, the invasion of Iraq the pipelines in Afganastan and all this work being carried out by companys with links to bush and his friends. the war needs guns and equipment... who makes that? who profits? do YOU???

So simplistic.

Definitive, as-yet-undisputed research the proves the conspiracy has already been done. It is there and available to read: Crossing the Rubicon by Mike Ruppert.

25 of 31 people found the following review helpful:

A Useful Method for Evaluating Amazon Customer Reviews, June 1, 2006
Reviewer:J. Weeldreyer (Seattle, WA USA) - See all my reviews
Quick Version of My Review (and method of evaluating reviews):
Read all the negatives and decide if they sound reasonable and persuasive. I did, and they were not enough to dissuade me from buying this book. It arrived yesterday, and I've been enjoying it thoroughly since then. I'm happy to have disregarded the negative reviews.

Full Version:
As a person who spends a great deal of time using a computer for work, it is inevitable that on the occasional break I also use it for personal reasons such as shopping. Early on, it became apparent to me that one of the most useful methods for evaluating a product was using the customer reviews--but in a very specific manner; that manner being, read the negative reviews *first.*

In my experience, doing so will help you save a great deal of time and potentially, frustration. By reading the negative reviews first, I am typically able to answer a very important question quickly. That question is, "Does the problem lie with the product/service in question, or with the end user/reviewer?"

A great example of the usefulness of this sort of examination would be examining the reviews for nearly any technology product. Any tech company that sells products to the general public is forced to dedicate an extraodinary amount of resources in dealing with the ignorance of the general public and their inability to effectively problem solve. Do a quick search on Google regarding tech support issues, and you'll almost always find (like all tech companies have found) that the single greatest issue with any product is user error. A great example for the flip side of the same coin would be the Apple iPod. A device that is so simple that a person with severely impaired mental capacity is able to use and enjoy it. While the iPod is undeniably a great product, it is not the standard by which all others should be evaluated. If that degree of product usability were required for everything prior to their release, then we'd see a massive reduction in the variety of goods, as well as an enormous slowdown in their rate of development/deployment. Not everybody needs or wants a product to be simplified to such a large degree.

The point here being, a lot of people are perfectly willing to leave a negative review, completely disregarding the possibility that the problem is not with the product or service, but with themselves.

So, I have found that when evaluating a product or service, a quick scan of the negative reviews is often the very best source of information for what I can expect. If the negative reviewers have objective complaints (like: "the battery life is only 2 hours on a full charge when it was advertised to be 8 hours", and they are consistent and overwhelming then it I often choose to respect the experience of others and avoid that product. However, if the negative reviewers have primarily subjective complaints (like: "this is hard to use," or "I don't like it" then I have to attempt to determine how much the reviewer is like myself. Most of the time, those negative reviews are from people who seem to be, in my opinion at least, unqualified to be reviewing the product in question.

This method has proven very useful, and I've found myself to be very pleased with the purchases I've made based upon reviews posted on the internet. I think for anybody considering the purchase of this book, it would be a particularly instructive exercise and a productive use of your time. Read the negative reviews first and ask yourself:

1. Did this person acutally read the book? (surprisingly, it appears several negative reviews were from people that had *never* read it)

2. Does it appear this person had a complete grasp of the materials presented?

3. Does this person appear capable of providing objective insights into the quality of the material, or are they primarily reacting to it?

4. Does this person clearly express their ideas, applying a thought process (and using a vocabulary) that I can identify with?

By this point you should have a pretty good grasp of whether or not the review is credible and if it is useful to you personally. Now this probably is not a novel solution, and I do not claim to be the first person to apply it. But in my cursory examination of the negative reviews for this book, I did not find them to be overwhelmingly credible or persuasive. Any negative reviews consisting of one or two lines only were discarded summarily since they consist of nothing but opinion--typically one that was poorly reasoned and expressed. Longer reviews were read and considered. Jill Malter's review sounds too personal for me to take seriously--she sounds sincere and I have the impression that she may be a very likable person--but her review is full of emotion, the type of reaction that reveals more of a dogmatic *reaction* to the book than a thoughtful rejection of it. Harold D. Smith provides a more thoughtful, objective and nuanced review--one that I look forward to comparing with my own experience.

This sort of book requires you to intentionally assume a highly skeptical position and to evaluate the concepts and "proof" presented with a critical eye. You have to be able to maintain a certain level of personal indifference, particularly regarding any potentially dogmatic beliefs you may hold about the virtue of governments in general, and of the American government in particular. And you have to be patient. This is not the sort of material you can easily race through and expect to have given it a fair, but critical reading.

If you can do those things, I'd recommend it. One thing, however, is certain: You will get a good mental workout (if you are up to it). If you cannot, chances are very good that you too will feel like those who gave this book an unearned negative review. And like those readers, the problem will not have been with the material per se, but perhaps with a reader who is unable to master it.

Firstly Alex, I just want to tell you how much I enjoy your posts.

I went over to amazon.com and found the following review under that book, and it is so appropriate to what goes on in this forum I decided to steal it and post it here in its entirety.

Begin quoted material:

TWC-7 was built in 1985, so...does that mean you're going to blame Ronald Reagan for the World Trade Center collapse now??

I almost hope there is some master plan that is hidden. At least that way somebody is in control instead of shooting blindly in the dark, hoping for the best and ignoring the consequences.

I didnt say you did. but thats how your opinion is formed right? not just your bias.

Well then, if not controlled demolition because the absence of obvious smoke puffs, what would you suggest? The main contenders right now are an office fire, firecrackers, coconut shells. Pick your choice.

It sure looked like controlled demolition to me.

Don't forget the massive insider trading that happened right before 9/11.

Shhh, it didn't really happen.

been going on for decades, assuming that a terrorist incident was a coverup is simply naive and moronic

Oh, Billy ...

Just hold up your end of the bargain, hon. We'll talk after.

hmm how about structural damage from the million+ tons of debris that fell from the other two towers? and building that burn can collapse if the fire weakens the support structure enough, it can happen so stop trying to play the "its never happened before, so it must be a government conspiracy" bullshit. Pearl Harbor was never attacked before, but hot damn it happened.